RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:19:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I'm carrying out an objective I've had since coming back from OIF the first time. One of these things is to destroy the opposition's arguments against the Iraq War, and against what we're doing in pursuit of our long term security. As long as the opposition keeps coming back, I'm going to have a continued excuse to keep posting here and to keep destroying their arguments. I'm going to beat a dead horse into "individual atoms" if I have to.


You are not doing a very good job of it.
You are one man who claims to be a enlisted man in the army in iraq yet you would have us believe that you have access to anything and everything about the war and who is doing what. Those of us who have been in the military know you are being less than truthfull.
In the real military if an enlisted man punches out an officer he will find out what the inside of a brig looks like post haste yet you would have us believe that it happens all the time...yeah right. Repeat Point


I'm doing an excellent job at doing what I've set out to do on this thread. You could press the facts for a long time. BS could only take you so far. Based on your performance, you're scrapping the bottom of the barrel to try to uphold a disproven opinion.

I've repeatedly stated that I have first-hand accounts of what it's like in Iraq. I've combat deployed to that country. I was able to see that country, and what happens in it within my view, without the media spoon feeding me that information. That's what I'm basing my information on. But I don't stop there. As I've repeatedly stated here, I've done extensive research on the topic that we're debating on. This is what I meant when I said that I advance an argument based on facts, first-hand experience, and extensive research.

The opposition, including you, is lacking when it comes to both experience and research. All you guys have is rhetoric fueled by emotion and ideology.

Those of you who served? ROTFLMFAO! A critical thinker would read that as, "we phony veterans believe that you're being less than truthful." LOL! Your posts here indicate that you have little to no military experience. The opposition consists of those who never served (or who never combat deployed), those who embellish their status as a former/current military family member, and those who pull your red herring tactics.

REAL Veterans know that I'm being truthful, and what I say happens in the military is actually what happens. For instance, I've described scenarios that actually do take place in the military. When human nature creeps in, your "perfect world" scenario goes out the door. If an officer gets knocked on his ass for making a decision that caused unnecessary death or serious injury; when he should've known better, he increases his chances of getting his ass knocked to the ground. When something like that happens, that officer is going to have a hard time getting the Article 15 process started.

If you look at the trends of my arguments on officers getting their azz knocked on the ground, I'm not saying that this scenario happens all the time; I just indicated that these DO happen in the military, with the enlisted person not being subjected to Article 15. If you were in the military, this wouldn't sound strange to you. My dad, as well as his Vietnam Veteran friends, talked about how officers got their asses knocked to the ground similar to the scenario I describe above.



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:20:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

WRONG. My dad did six combat tours in Iraq. I've seen some of the paperwork my dad saved from his Navy days. Included in that paperwork were award orders for one of the tours he did in Vietnam. He was based out of Coronado and Subic.

Again, unlike you, my dad's service was real. You never served in Vietnam.


You said your dad was dead if so how did he do six tours in Iraq?
I did not say your squid daddy did not serve I said he did not do six years in viet nam.


For someone that goes out of his way to act like my post says something other than what I actually meant; you do a piss poor job deviating from what I wrote to interpret it consistent with what I've argued. This is where reading comprehension comes in. Throughout this thread, I've repeatedly said that my dad did six combat tours in Vietnam. That one brain cell of yours should've seen what I actually meant. The fact that you could see things in the rest of my posts that I didn't communicate should translate into your being able to see in my post what I actually meant.

Not only does this indicate that you have piss poor reading comprehension abilities, you have zero common sense. This goes in the same category as your needing to read what I write with the intentions of understanding what I'm saying.

I countered your unqualified claims about my dad's combat tours to Vietnam. My dad did do six combat tours in Vietnam. Notice that I didn't say that he did 6 years, I said he did six tours. My mentioning the fact that my dad served is just me comparing him to you. Unlike my dad, you didn't serve in Vietnam, and you more than likely didn't serve in the military. If you "did" in fact, "serve," your posts are doing you a terrible injustice.



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:22:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

This is where you drop the ball.

The OP has a groovier appendage. One can only dream of life on a face chair.


That would be another mega difference of opinion.


Stated based on your bias and disagreement with my position. The reality?

Every woman that has sat on my face had a great time. Women who have sat on my face outside of BDSM, aka vanilla, got possessive of me and reacted like they've never gotten their snatch eaten out before. Every woman that has sat on my face had no regrets. It didn't matter if these women were straight, bi, American, etc.


It is so cute when little boys brag about their talents.


Do you see how ridiculous you sound when I add the conversation back in? Look at the highlighted conversation. A poster jumped in and talked about the advantages of a face chair. Lady Boom Boom jumped in and tried to talk that down, based on her extreme bias against my argument. I jump in and edged toward specifics on how a face chair gives a better advantage to a woman, than, say, your limp friend.

Your response is just another example of you with your head shoved up your ass. What's really funny is watching you struggle to shove your head further up your ass, rather than the other direction. Trying to keep the strawman company?



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:24:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Here's an example of you proving my point about your side of the argument. You're working overtime to try to cast doubt on my statement, as well as on one of the things that gives me validity in this argument over your side of the argument. I don't go drinking, clubbing, fishing, or hunting like the majority of the soldiers out here. Are you going to try to use that as another exhibit in your feeble attempt to continue to cast doubt on my service?

Have you ever heard of this little thing like, you know, people doing different things on their off time for fun? One of my favorite pass times happens to be "writing," I've gotten to the point to where I'm doing it for profit.

The fact that you'd "snip" the part of his post out that proves your assumptions wrong speaks volumes about your integrity.
If you think you are proving your integrity, well enjoy it. It is your fantasy after all.

I think this writing thing will work out well for you. I am beginning to suspect this thread is going to be your first novel.

Have fun with it. Every time you stomp your foot and slap ya dick on the table, it makes you look like an idiot.

jstanotherintegritylackinsubwhoisdonewiththisthread


There's no "thinking" about this. I've been consistent with my argument on this thread; the information that I've argued is consistent, and is on point; and I've been consistent with getting back with people. I've done what I've said I'll do, that's part of having integrity. This isn't fantasy, but reality.

The writing thing is already working well for me; like I said, I'm already getting paid to do it. Heck, while I was in Iraq, one of my clients paid me for a writing that I did for their website 3 years ago. In order to do the writing that I do, you have to be as persistent and passionate about what you're writing about... like me. [:D]

If anybody is looking like an idiot here, it's you, and you do it every time you post. You made an idiot out of yourself, and proved to be an embarrassment to the education system that graduated you, the moment you jumped into this thread. I just love the way you showed your true colors and proved me right in the process. You never were one of the people "on the sides," or on the outside looking in. You were against me the whole time.



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:25:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

thompsonx: That is clearly your opinion but could you please show us just where in the u.n. charter it speaks of "symetrical warfare"? Red Herring + Strawman Argument

Their charter addresses symmetrical warfare, NOT asymmetrical warfare. Everything that was contained in your quote was symmetrical warfare in nature, with the intentions of addressing symmetrical, not asymmetrical warfare. Expecting the people that wrote the charter to know terms that's commonly used in the 21st Century, to describe a 21st Century War, is completely asinine. That charter was written in the middle of the 20th Century with the assumption that warfare would remain "frozen" in the World War II, (symmetrical warfare) sense. Wars, and what constitutes the acts of war, and what's needed to address war, or the potential for one, have changed. Bottom line, the United Nations Charter didn't address asymmetrical warfare.


The u.n. charter does no such thing it addresses the relationships between nations...try reading it sometime.


You'd have to be "blind" to make that comment. I read what you quoted from the UN charter. It didn't prove my argument wrong, all you did was show text written to address symmetrical warfare. The people writing that charter didn't realize that this was what they were doing. But in terms of 21st Century Warfare, that's precisely what they were doing. Your trying to use semantics to hide that fact is just you utilizing the "lalalalal, nany nany booboo, I can't hear you!" maneuver.

Hey, I have an Idea... warning, it's going to break your reading paradigm, and cause your world to go upside down... but it's something you should do when reading your posts. How about reading something with the intentions of understanding what you're reading? Or are you refusing to do this as it forces you to see how wrong you're arguments are?



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:27:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

REPEAT POINT

Actually I see him as an individual who has no clue what the military is about.

REPEAT POINT


Whether you like it or not, how you say the military runs is "textbook," what would happen in the perfect world. The military that I described is the military that exists. Don't mistake my constantly hammering your lack of knowledge of how we do things in the military as my "not" having a clue" about what the military is about. Unlike you, I served in the military.



Yeah we can tell by all the "jargon" you like to toss about. It would convince almost any fifth grader. So far almost all of the vets that have chimed in have noticed your bullshit factor has pegged everyones meeter.


What? Are you that arrogant that you're telling me that everybody on the opposition has somebody that they've designated to meet other people for themselves? And how the fuck can you peg these people from a website?

Meeter: Attendant, a person who is present and participates in a meeting; one who meets. (Princeton, wordnetweb)

My posts must be pretty damn good to be able to peg a meeter from within this message board.

Doesn't your own medicine taste great? [:D]

But you see, unlike you, I have common sense. I knew, from reading comprehension abilities far superior to yours, what you were talking about. Even though you mentioned an actual job position, for a person, I had the intelligence to determine that you were talking about something else.

Going back to the reading comprehension deal, you illustrate my point nicely. What you quoted? It could be understood by a 5th grader. Nothing in there is more "technical" than the Encyclopedia Britannica books that I read starting from when I was in the 3rd Grade. The point that I'm making here is that I'm for the most part straight forward with what I'm saying here. I put words together so that even a 5th grader could understand what I'm getting across. I never said anything about convincing 5th graders.

Let's get this straight. REAL veterans, to include those that combat deployed, thanked me for my service. They easily saw what I was talking about here. The "veterans" that you reference are those that claim to be veterans; but post as if they either have no military experience, or have little experience. Then we have people that try to embellish their status as current/previous military house hold members... Even in this group, we have posers. THESE are the people that you erroneously label as "veterans." I hate to break this out to you, but if anybody in the opposition ever served, their posts do them a terrible injustice.



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:29:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyWood

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Every woman that has sat on my face had a great time.



Any of them ever take the opportunity to take a huge dump?

They must have been tempted.


It's amusing how liberals react to someone exercising their freedom of speech. For instance, Al Pieda throwing custard cream pies at An Coulter. What's this clown's contribution? He reacts to the facts by symbolically throwing feces at me. Liberals are all about "the free exchange of ideas," as long as it's their ideas that get shared, and nothing dares challenge it. Dare challenge a liberal, and they'll try to find ways to "shut you up."

This clown isn't the only one though. I recently received a PM from a frustrated liberal attempting to shut me down; his message had a veiled threat.



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:31:09 PM)

thompsonx: Of course you saying that you did win makes it true... How exactly does that work?

From what you quoted in my post:

You win the debate by presenting a reasoned, logical argument backed with facts, research and experience. The opposition didn’t have any of that, just emotional and ideologically driven rhetoric combined with strawman arguments, repeat points, red herring statements, and so on.

thompsonx: The majority of posters on this thread have mentioned that you are full of shit to one degree or another

And, in response, I’ve repeatedly shown them how the facts back my argument, and how the opposition is full of shit. Since you’re too dense to notice this, the majority of the posters, the opposition, is WRONG. Do you want to know how ridiculous your statement here is? Time for another question to question your statement’s validity:

Everybody used to believe that the sun orbited the Earth. Since everybody believed this, did it automatically follow that the Sun actually orbited the Earth, simply because everybody believed it did? YES [ ] NO [ ].

Simply copy and paste that question, put an “X” in the appropriate box and spare me your BS.

Your failure to answer this question will prove that you have no confidence in your statement. Your failure to answer this questions truthfully and factually, as constrained above, causes you to forfeit asking me questions, or expecting answers to your questions.

thompsonx: yet you persist in your rant...

Don’t dismiss my constantly destroying your arguments as a “rant.” Simply put, your side of the argument comes here and spews their drivel. I come back and destroy their argument.

thompsonx: you so remind me of the black knight from "monty python and the search for the holy grail". Repeat Point.

Just like the both of us on this thread, the Black Night on Monty Python and his opponent indicated that they were winning in the movie. Both the Black Night and you actually lost.



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:32:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

From the amount of shit that is spewing from his mouth it might appear that more than one was more than tempted


The women that sat on my face knew the difference between facts and bullshit. So none attempted to take a dump. But given the amount of crap that you’ve spewed, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if one of your masters used you as a toilet slave.



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:34:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

thompsonx: Your daddy served six years in viet nam...yeah right. Repeat Point.

All you did was give your opinion that my dad "didn't" serve in Vietnam. I countered you with the facts, that he did 6 combat tours in Vietnam... I saw his old award orders for one of the combat tours that he did. Unlike you, my dad served. You could sit there, having never served, and fart the opinion that my dad "didn't" serve all you want, that doesn't change the fact that unlike you, he served in Vietnam.


You gotta learn to read sonny...I did not say your squid daddy did not serve I said he did not do six years in viet nam.


I had to place certain key words/phrases in bold and underline them, as you're incapable of reading.

For instance, how many times am I directly/indirectly referencing Vietnam service? That's the crux of the quoted statement, that unlike you, my dad served in Vietnam. I countered your rubbish about my dad "not" serving in Vietnam. You would've gotten this part had you ben capable of reading comprehension. I didn't say anything about years, I said that my dad did six combat tours in Vietnam. I'm deliberately leaving one key piece of information out, because I know what you're going to try to say in response. I'm sadistic that way.



thompsonx -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:35:32 PM)

quote:

thompsonx: Just like your squid daddy leaving his post to show a certified welder how to do his job... REPEAT POINT

A fire watch assigned to a welder would be in that welder's vicinity, with a fire extinguisher. He has to be near the welder in order to quickly put a fire out if the welder starts a fire. When my dad did the welder's job, he was still in his station. This should've been obvious to you if you served. I just love the way you prove me right with your actions. If you served, your posts don't do you any justice.


You seem to know as little about welding as you do about being a soldier.
The firewatch guy is standing by with his fire extinguisher watching the sparks that are caused by the welder and making sure that they do not catch anything on fire.
Now when your squid daddy put on the welders helmet how was he able to see where the sparks went?
The welder is a certified specialist and your daddy was neither certified nor the one contracted to do the job. Yet he put down his fire extinguisher and put on the welders helmet and abandoned his post.
See even your "my daddy is so bitchin' stories" lack any semblance of veracity.
This would be the same daddy that you claim did six years in viet nam?...yeah right



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:38:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Also, "since you got out"? Are you fucking kidding me? The best case scenario for you is that you did "serve," but never combat deployed. The worst case scenario is that you never served. Based on your hatred for the troops, I'd say that you never served.


Now that is a interesting jump in your logic process....where do you get that I hate the troops.
I may feel that many are ignorant and ill informed some may be as dumb as a stone but nowhere have I mentioned any hatred for them...are you projecting?


That's not a jump, but consistent with what I get from reading your posts. This isn't the first thread where you and I have clashed. Your demeanor, as demonstrated in your posts, show that you hate the troops. You could say that you "don't" hate the troops all you want, I look at your conduct on these boards. You're not the only one that hates the troops here. What I've bolded in red in your quote? That gives your true position away, you hate the military.

The reality is that the troops have a first-hand account of what's going on in the military. When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan? Those troops that deployed to those countries have a first hand account of what takes place in those countries. Military service gives them a vantage point that someone that isn't in the military doesn't have. What I've bolded in red above shows your reactions to the facts that they express based on their first hand experiences.

You, having only received filtered information from the frontlines, have no legs to stand on when accusing many service members being "dumb" or "ill informed." Based on what you've said here, I know for a fact that you're seriously ill informed. If I were to come up with one word describing your knowledge on the topic we're debating, I'd say, "clueless."



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:42:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

thompsonx: Halliburton is not making any money in the sand box...yeah right. Repeat point + strawman argument

You argued that Halliburton was involved with Iraq contracts. These contracts entailed reconstruction and supplies and services. Halliburton's own website denies these. It's then subsidiary, KBR, provided the logistics services. You insinuated that Halliburton provided these services, when it was KBR that provided these services. It speaks volumes about your "debate" ability when you have to resort to revising history to make it look like we were arguing something completely different.


Repeat Point

That is your contention not mine. Halliburton is still in the sand box and they are making money yet you want to set up some other scenario like your "kbr" story.

Repeat Point


I guess you forgot our conversation then. I even displayed it on the previous batch of replies, you had to see it. However, since you love to plead ignorant, here it is again:

"It has been pretty widely reported that Haliburton has a ton of "no bid" contracts." --thompsonx

What were those contracts for? Reconstruction and logistics/support service for the troops.

What I said in response:

"What's actually been widely reported is that their THEN subsidiary, Kellog Brown & Root, aka KBR, has the contracts. They've since parted paths, so it's just KBR providing the services/holding the contracts, not Halliburton." -- herfacechair

What you also said:

"Can you tell all of us ignorant children what it means when you say that halliburton is no longer supplying logistic services in iraq?" -- thompsonx

What I replied:

"Halliburton is an energy company, not a logistics and services company for the troops. Halliburton was assumed to provide such services because its subsidiary, KBR was the company that provided those services to the troops."

"From Chron dot com:" -herfacechair

"KBR is officially out on its own--Oil-field-services giant Halliburton Co. said Thursday it had finally broken ties with KBR, its contracting, engineering and construction unit, which had been a part of the company for 44 years." --Chron dot com

"From Halliburton's website:" - herfacechair

"Halliburton, founded in 1919, is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry." -- Halliburton's Website

Now, from Halliburton's own website:

Q: What work is the Company performing in Iraq?

A: Halliburton Company has never been contracted for services by the U.S. government, particularly none of the logistics support services frequently discussed in the media today.

Your question is a red herring question as it doesn't deal with your original assumption that they provided logistics and services to the troops, as well as your assumption that we, US troops deployed to Iraq, were currently making money for your "Halliburton" stocks. Stick with the CRUX of our argument, instead of trying to advance a strawman argument.

thompsonx: Maybe that works on your high school debate team but this is the real world.

My tactics work here, as I've got you dancing around, backpeddling, and resorting to desperate measures like diving into symantics instead of addressing the topic at hand. Your tactics wouldn't work in either the debate team or the real world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

It's then subsidiary, KBR, provided the logistics services. You insinuated that Halliburton provided these services, when it was KBR that provided these services.


I insinuated no such thing. You are the one who pulled that straw man out of your ass.


Again, what you said:

"Can you tell all of us ignorant children what it means when you say that Halliburton is no longer supplying logistic services in iraq?" -- thompsonx

Now, from Halliburton's own website:

Q: What work is the Company performing in Iraq?

A: Halliburton Company has never been contracted for services by the U.S. government, particularly none of the logistics support services frequently discussed in the media today.

Have you no shame? I'm hanging you in this argument with your own words. [:D] I enjoy making you look stupid with your own words. If anybody is pulling strawmen out of their asses, it's you, and I'm being nice about this... unless you prefer to be called a liar.

thompsonx: I believe I have mentioned before that I do not debate I discuss.

I go by what you do, not what you say. What we're involved with isn't a discussion, but a debate. A debate is what happens when two opposing sides go at it. A discussion is what happens when both parties agree with each other on many of the issues being discussed.

thompsonx: You on the other hand are not interested in learning anything.

WRONG. I'm going to learn from the facts. These are facts that I gather from first hand experience, as well as from extensive research. I've never changed my mind on an issue based on what someone I was arguing said. If anything, you're the one that isn't interested in learning anything. If you were, you'd be willing to abandon your faulty assumptions the moment you saw my fact based statements.

However, you're also forgetting what I've repeatedly stated:

"I know, I've been involved with online debates for years, what's going on in this thread is no different from the others that I've debated on. My intentions aren't to change his mind, but to continuously destroy his arguments." --herfacechair

"Never mind that I've said that I have absolutely no intentions of changing my mind, or getting the opposition to change their minds." -herfacechair

I'm here to continuously destroy the opposition's arguments.

thompsonx: Your only purpose here is to spout some bullshit rhetoric about how knowledgeble you are about things "sand box".

My purpose here is to continue destroying the opposition's argument... and to show a real neutral party how your side of the argument doesn't have a factual bases for the crap they spew here. Don't dismiss my pushing my first-hand experience, as well as extensive research on this topic, as my "spouting" some "bullshit." That's me reminding the opposition that they don't have a leg to stand on in this thread if they're debating against me.

If anything, this one thing is what bothers the hell out of you. Deep down inside, you intellectually know that I'm right in this argument, and that you're wrong. But since you're filled to the brim with your arrogance, you refuse to accept that fact. You're working full time trying to rationalize your irrational position, and sources, so that you could continue to sate your ego.

Bottom line, I'm more qualified than the opposition when it comes to debating this issue.

thompsonx: The majority on this thread have pointedly told you just how full of shit you and your rant are. Repeat point + Inductive Fallacy.

Here's a saying from one of the leadership courses they teach in the military:

"What's wrong is wrong, even if the majority think it's right."

And

"What's right is right, even if the majority think it's wrong."

These describe certain instances, like the opposition's argument here. What's wrong is wrong describes the majority posters thinking that I'm "full of shit." What's right in this instance? The argument that I'm advancing against your drivel, as well as those that you call, "the majority on this board." Your statement amounts to inductive fallacy. It doesn't reflect the facts, and it assumes that your argument is "right" because the majority that post here essentially said the same thing as you.

So, to test your inductive fallacy, here's the same question again:

Everybody used to believe that the sun orbited the Earth. Since everybody believed this, did it automatically follow that the Sun actually orbited the Earth, simply because everybody believed it did? YES [ ] NO [ ].

Simply copy and paste that question, put an "X" in the appropriate box and spare me your BS.

Your failure to answer this question will prove that you have no confidence in your statement. It also causes you to forfeit asking me questions, or expecting me to answer your questions.



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:44:20 PM)

thompsonx:Not dense at all just making the point that looking at her apendages would be more fun than looking at yours...

Hence the fact that you're dense. She expressed her opinion that we were "involved" in a "pissing" contest. You, being a reject in real life, with women not wanting to have anything to do with you, started perving after her. That's the second woman on this thread that you perved after, wouldn't be surprised if you perved after many more woman on this board. Perhaps a change of attitude, as well as a change in focus in the bedroom, would let women overlook your ED problems.

thompsonx: now maybe you want to look at mine

Keep your gay fantasy to yourself.

thompsonx: but until you grow indoor plumbing

That's not my home that you're talking about that's missing indoor plumbing, that's your master's room; which is why he's got you serving as his toilet slave. This, in turn, leads to you spewing nothing but BS on this thread.

thompsonx: and learn to keep your mouth shut

The chances of me not replying to you, and the opposition, are as great as the chances of you physically walking on the surface of Mars within a couple of hours. Since you're too stupid to figure this out, as long as you guys reply to me, I'm going to continue to destroy your arguments. Want me to shut my mouth? Shut yours first, this includes the opposition. Until then, this thread is going to continue to grow.

thompsonx: when a cock is not in it there

You do realize that when your master told you that your mouth was a pocket pussy... he was trying to make it easier for you to accept your mouth's new role for his appendage? He wasn't completely truthful to you. My mouth only services women.

thompsonx: is not much chance of you getting a look.

No thanks, beating your appendage around is your master's sole domain.



herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:47:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Keep your eyes open for where the money flows. Goldman and JPM are owners a federal reserve- which is a central bank. Notice that anyone we have friction with is not a participant in the central bank. Iran will be a problem- they do not beleive in usury interest payments.

So watch who gets paid-who gets funded- who had the help of congress. Size it up like it is a roadside bomb.

Assess that enemy and -- once you note a pattern- you might decide they are a problem.

Peoples houses, jobs and retirements are being stolen by the federal reserve.


Goldman and JPM are going to follow where the free market indicates they should follow. They don't need the military to break them in. If they're not in a certain country, there's a good chance that it's because they don't see themselves making much of a profit there. They're going to follow the money trail. We're not going to invade a country simply because they don't have Goldman and JPM's interests at hand. Saying that we have a friction with anybody that doesn't have a central bank is like saying that we have a friction with anybody that doesn't speak English as a primary language. It's inductive fallacy.



thompsonx -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:49:42 PM)

thompsonx: So are you now saying that knocking an offecer on his azz was wrong and the enlisted man doing the punching should and did go to the brig? No you are just dancing as usual.

Are you THAT dense that even after I keep telling you the same thing, you're going to have two different interpretations of what I said? I've constantly shown you this exchange:

"Officer issues stupid orders
Someone's, or his own, wisdom indicates a better option, but he goes against better judgment.
His orders are followed.
Soldiers get killed, injured as a result.
Information is received that indicated that the mission didn't have to happen.
Officer gets knocked on his azz."

Both of these are your responses to my showing the above scenario, and challenging you to find where I said what you allegedly said:

"So in your military it is ok for enlisted men to punch out officers as long as they actually follow his orders" --thompsonx

"So are you now saying that knocking an offecer on his azz was wrong and the enlisted man doing the punching should and did go to the brig?" --thompsonx

If anybody is dancing around, it's you. God I love making this braindead poser look stupid with his own words!

So far you have not mentioned what happened to the enlisted man who puched out the officer. Was he arrested? Was he charged? Did he go to the brig?
Since you do not condem this action is would follow that you approve and when you do not tell us what the military did in response to this you imply that it was approved of by command and by the officer who got the shit kicked out of him.
One has to ask why would a man risk his carear and the next twenty years of his life in prison for such a thing? The way you tell this story it leads one to believe that this is common practice in the army. Is it?
Perhaps you could tell us how many times it has happened in the sand box?
The simple fact is that if one is going to get 20 years in the brig for punching out an officer and the penality for fragging an officer is pretty much the same thing then why would any sane person settle for simply punching out the officer?
Once again your logic fails your arguement.



pahunkboy -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:51:59 PM)

quote:

Goldman
quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Keep your eyes open for where the money flows. Goldman and JPM are owners a federal reserve- which is a central bank. Notice that anyone we have friction with is not a participant in the central bank. Iran will be a problem- they do not beleive in usury interest payments.

So watch who gets paid-who gets funded- who had the help of congress. Size it up like it is a roadside bomb.

Assess that enemy and -- once you note a pattern- you might decide they are a problem.

Peoples houses, jobs and retirements are being stolen by the federal reserve.


Goldman and JPM are going to follow where the free market indicates they should follow. They don't need the military to break them in. If they're not in a certain country, there's a good chance that it's because they don't see themselves making much of a profit there. They're going to follow the money trail. We're not going to invade a country simply because they don't have Goldman and JPM's interests at hand. Saying that we have a friction with anybody that doesn't have a central bank is like saying that we have a friction with anybody that doesn't speak English as a primary language. It's inductive fallacy.






How much was your bonus?








What’s more, Goldman’s employees are on track for what could still turn out to be a very good year. Goldman has set aside $9.3 billion for bonuses and other compensation so far this year — down 18 percent from the first half of 2009 — but enough to equal more than $500,000 per employee at the firm, which has a work force of 34,100.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/tough-stretch-sees-earnings-and-revenue-decline-at-goldman/





pahunkboy -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:53:15 PM)

Central bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA central bank, reserve bank, or monetary authority is a banking institution granted the exclusive privilege to lend a government its currency. ...
History - Activities and responsibilities - Goals of monetary policyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank - Cached - Similar



pahunkboy -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 5:55:42 PM)

Goldman Sachs: 'Too Big To Prosecute' | The Public Record
By The Public RecordWatch Goldman Sachs: The True Winners of the SEC Case - StockRants ...
By StocksonWallStreet
Goldman settlement won't help earnings
CNNMoney
More on the Goldman/SEC Settlement: On Lawyers, Votes & Strategy
Wall Street Journal (blog)
Sen. Levin on Goldman Sachs: Whether or not someone goes to jail is going to ...
Washington Post (blog)




pahunkboy -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/21/2010 6:04:06 PM)

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to Inductive fallacies‎: Slothful induction is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization - Cached - Similar/snip


Wow.   So HFC you know what there is to know in regards to the federal reserve.   We broke from England due to grip of its central bank on our people.

Glass Stregall, and 1207 are basic items... we have taxation with out representation.

You very logic- that if we dont take Iraqs stuff- someone else WILL.   That is exactly what Goldman is doing to YOU.  Taken from your family- its jobs, houses and retirements.

It is incredible how you know everything there is to know about monetary policy.   Congress itself has some learning to do.

Thru out history - the East India Company engages in mercantilism.


But being that you are smug and arrogant-  you know all there is to know about central banking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man



Page: <<   < prev  62 63 [64] 65 66   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125